Short Note : 1. Non-applicant No.1 Hukumchand filed execution application for recovery of his money amounting to Rs. 2,014/- against non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3 in the Court of the Civil Judge Class I, Mhow. The Mhow Court attached the money lying in the Court of the Second Civil Judge Class II, Indore. Ultimately the Court by its, order dated 19-4-1974 came to the conclusion that the execution application was barred by time and dismissed the same. Against that order, non-applicant No.1 filed Civil Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 1974 in which he made an application to the effect that the attachment of the money may be allowed to continue so that the judgment debtors non-applicants Nos. 2 & 3 may not take away the attached amount. On that application, an ex-parte order was passed to the effect that the amount in question should not be paid to anyone else. Thereafter on 14-10-1974, non-applicant No.1 filed another application stating that the amount which was attached by him was also attached by another decree-holder viz. the present applicant : Madanlal in execution of his two money decrees amounting to Rs. 13,078.72 p. The learned lower appellate Court also passed an order that the said amount should not be paid to the appellant Madanlal also, for which the Court had also issued a payment voucher in his favour. When applicant Madanlal came to know of this order, he submitted his objections, and after hearing arguments the learned lower appellate Court ordered that the amount in question shall remain in attachment till the disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 1974. Hence this revision. Held: It has been well settled that the proviso to Order 21, R.52 CPC, comes into operation only after there has been attachment of the fund in Court. Only when, there is a fund, in Court which would be available for attachment in pursuance of an order issued by another Court the claim relating to the fund attached should properly be raised before the court which issued the order of attachment. But once an order for payment has been made by the Court, whatever amount that is ordered to be paid out belongs to the person to whom the money is ordered to be paid. It cannot thereafter be made available to the claim of third parties, to that amount. But once an order for payment has been made by the Court, whatever amount that is ordered to be paid out belongs to the person to whom the money is ordered to be paid. It cannot thereafter be made available to the claim of third parties, to that amount. There can, therefore, be no valid attachment of these monies subsequent to the order of payment. On the passing of the order which is the judicial act, the property is transferred to the person in whose favour the order is made and the issue of the cheque or the actual payment of the money which might be delayed in pursuance of the order is a ministerial act which cannot prejudice the rights of the person who has obtained the order for payment. Where the Court orders payment to be made, that order must be treated as if the payment has actually been made at the date of the order so as to prevent subsequent attachment of the money in Court. There is always certain interval between the passing of the order and its issue and the payment being made on the strength of that order, a party should not be prejudiced simply because there is delay. When he has actually got the order, the proper course is to treat that order of payment as an actual payment so far as the rights of third persons to attach are concerned. In the present case, the lower appellate Court has also found that by giving a payment-voucher to the applicant Madanlalactual payment has been made to him. It has further found that applicant Madanlal being not a party to Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 1974, no injunction could be passed against him restraining him from withdrawing the attached amount for which he had already obtained the payment voucher. This Court is therefore, of opinion that in these circumstances, the learned lower appellate Court had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and that it has thus acted illegally and with material irregularity in attachment till disposal of the appeal before it. Ranga Bashyam v. Rashandan Chetty, AIR 1952 Mad. 540 relied on. Revision allowed.